Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Exhorting pastors to biblical fidelity
In the past year, Pastor John MacArthur has made available thousands of sermons for free downloading at his Grace to You site. I have been working my way through many of them, both recent and older archived ones, and thought I would list some that have been stirring my heart. Note: All five of these are geared toward pastors, and yet the messages are instructional and challenging to all.
First, here are three sermons that challenge pastors to build their ministry on the foundation of the Word of God, seeking to have pastoral ministry that is in alignment with Biblical principles:
12 Marks of Excellent Pastoral Ministry
Characteristics of Useful Vessel (2 Timothy 2:14-26)
Next, here is a two-part series that describes the negative results of not preaching expositionally:
back to top21 Comments to “Exhorting pastors to biblical fidelity”
The decision by Grace To You to provide free of charge some 3,000 of John MacArthur’s sermons has been a real blessing to many.
I catch his daily radio broadcast as often as I can. The expositional approach to Scripture is the only way to truly teach and study the Word, and I especially appreciate MacArthur’s explanation and definitions of Greek and Hebrew words.
Report comment to moderator
I think MacArthur is certainly the “purest” Sola-Scriptura evangelical theologian living today. And by “purest” I mean someone who lives by the Bible alone and nothing else. As far as I know the natural law (which has its antecedents in Aristotle and was adopted in Christendom by Aquinas) plays little to no role in MacArthur’s theology. The natural law imports Greco-Roman (and arguably Enlightenment) ideas into biblical Christianity as, at the very least, a supplement. But the supplement risks superceding the Bible, which is what occured during the American Founding when the natural law superceded Romans 13 re whether men had a “right” to revolt against tyranny. The Bible alone teaches no such thing.
Report comment to moderator
I like John MacArthur and have read most of his commentaries. His doctrine is sound. However, even though his ministry is called Grace To You, he has never written a book on grace and his description of it in his commentaries is wanting. For this reason, he leans toward legalism.
Report comment to moderator
#3 “I like John MacArthur … His doctrine is sound.”
There are quite a few Pentecostals and charismatics out there who would disagree with you. Because of his teachings critiquing these believers, I’ve not ever been able to read or listen to his words anymore.
Report comment to moderator
#4 True. John MAcArthur minces no words in his book Charismatic Chaos, but he also says that charismatic doctrine includes all of the fundamentals of the faith and he calls them brethren in Christ, even though they are wrong about gifts.
I agree with MacArthur on that. Charismatics are simply wrong about spiritual gifts and it has led them down many wrong roads. So many (if not all) of their prophets have been shown to be false. Many of the so-called miracles, when examined closely, are also false. The ends don’t justify the means. Genuine Christianity is not advanced through lies.
Nevertheless, like MacArthur, I love my charismatic brethren and have no problem in fellowship and worship with them. Though I admit that when they say, “God told me…” I brush it aside as nonsense. Even so, I admire their zeal and grace.
We put our children in a charismatic school and we occasionally attend the associated charismatic church. I had to intervene once when the pastor was pushing the kids to participate in ‘One Thing’ which is a prophecy conference targeted at teens. It is run by the false prophet Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City.
So we just had to teach our kids about different brands of Christianity and how to prove what is true and to leave the rest by the side of the road. MacArthur’s books proved invaluable in that regard.
Report comment to moderator
I have listened to and read MacArthur for years, and attended several conferences where he speaks. I will second Jon’s comment on his Biblical purity. That is a great description of his ministry. Even those who may not agree with all of his Dispensationalism would not question his devotion to Scripture. His exposition is so rigorous I am challenged to hold on to areas where I may not agree with him. Would that all pastors would be so faithful.
Report comment to moderator
I am reading a book by MacArthur for the first time, as part of our small group Bible study at church. We’re reading his book Twelve Ordinary Men and using the workbook that goes with it.
It’s interesting and has some good insights, but it doesn’t give me the impression of “rigorous exposition.” What I see – and others in the group agree – is taking a single incident from the life of one of the disciples and building on that a case of what the man’s whole personality is like. He’ll say, this is what this man is like, and here’s an incident that illustrates it – never mind that it’s the only incident that illustrates it, because the Gospels tell so little about most of the disciples.
Not that it’s all that serious if Phillip wasn’t as obsessed about minutiae as MacArthur things, or if Jesus’ reference to Nathanael sitting under a fig tree didn’t have to do with where Nathanael did his prayer and Bible study. I’d have to read more of MacArthur’s books/sermons to see if he does theology the same way. I have to admit from having listened to one Bible study leader at another church read MacArthur’s notes on the passages we were studying, I wasn’t particularly inclinded to read more by him. Though that could be because of his dispensationalism (I was surprised the Bible study leader liked him so much, since it was a Presbyterian church).
Report comment to moderator
He has long been a friend of Presbyterians (or perhaps I should say Calvinists, and one in particular). I think he is at his best in the pulpit, so his sermons are what I commend to your listening and reading.
Report comment to moderator
On balance, John MacArthur has been a blessing to the church and his teachings are sound. I’m afraid, however, that Charismatic Chaos was a hermeneutical horror show, where his prejudices overwhelmed his exegesis.
There has been much mischief perpetrated by free floating charismatic visionaries not anchored in Scripture. Too many charismatics and Pentecostals confuse the spectacular with the supernatural. There has been as much mischief perpetrated by non-charismatics operating out of more linear, less pseudo spiritual approaches, if they are likewise not solidly anchored in the Word.
1 Thess 5:19-21 provides sufficient Scriptural instructions for dealing with charismatic utterances. “Don’t quench the Spirit by despising prophecies, or by uncritically accepting anything uttered as prophecy. Critique carefully, hold on to the good, avoid the evil,” in my paraphrase.
One of the best modern (by which I mean Reformation to present) guides to spiritual discernment is Jonathan Edwards’s masterful exegesis of 1 John 4-5, The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,
Report comment to moderator
XION,
Regarding John MacArthur he is no legalist! You don’t know what your talking about. John does not promote or endorse legalism. Quite the contrary, he follows the Bible but never uses his own preferences on others.
Report comment to moderator
#7 I read Twelve Ordinary Men too Pauline and come to the same conclusion. In some cases, the Bible mentions only a disciple’s name, yet MacArthur explains his life in elaborate detail, obviously overstepping the text by a long shot.
Report comment to moderator
#10 Correct Jimmy. MacArthur is not a legalist, but every legalist I know adores him. As one pastor friend of mine put it, many Christians believe we are saved by grace, but sanctified by works. MacArthur may disagree with that, but his commentaries do very little to dissuade that point of view.
In his commentary on Galatians he breaks grace down into Justifying Grace and Sanctifying Grace. In his Hebrews commentary on vs 4:16 MacArthur calls God’s Throne a grace dispenser as though grace were a kind of elixir or power that we must gain more of in time of need.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Grace is undeserved kindness, nothing more. The only spiritual power that helps us is God himself and the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no other power called grace. That’s ridiculous. God, according to his kindness to the undeserving, has given us his Spirit to help in time of need.
I assume MacArthur would agree with all this. But the way grace is explained in his commentaries comes far short of a full exposition of this most fundamental element of Christianity. And because whatever is not grace is works, his commentaries don’t discourage very strongly the notion of sanctification by works. He really struck out on this, but I still respect the man for all the good he has done.
Report comment to moderator
Although his frequent stringency can make him appear legalistic and even arrogant at times, MacArthur is one of a small handful of preachers who I listen to and read on a regular basis. He is a staunch defender of the faith in a world of wafflers and ear-ticklers. I thank God for MacArthur’s work for the Kingdom, and I hope it continues a good long time to come.
Other preacher/teachers I hold in that same regard, who are in that handful I mentioned, and who also give their sermons away at no charge are Alister Begg (Truth For Life) who recently made all of the sermons on his site available for free download, and John Piper (Desiring God). I don’t believe their is a finer preacher and teacher of God’s word in the world today than Pastor Piper, and you can download at no cost every sermon he has ever given at his church (more than 20+ years worth).
I do wish that Piper and MacArthur would come together a bit regarding Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. If MacArthur were to take the mentoring role with Driscoll that I see Piper doing the last few years, the growth of Driscoll and God’s work on the Pacific rim would likely become visible worldwide.
Report comment to moderator
I too like MacArthur’s exegesis, but I keep asking myself –where’s the joy?
Report comment to moderator
serloren – 13
YOU WROTE: “I do wish that Piper and MacArthur would come together a bit regarding Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. If MacArthur were to take the mentoring role with Driscoll that I see Piper doing the last few years, the growth of Driscoll and God’s work on the Pacific rim would likely become visible worldwide.”
Mark Driscoll is Emergent Church of which most Evangelicals will not accept. Mark Driscoll’s statements about Jesus and tattoo’s are not Biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Hasn’t Mark Driscoll distanced himself from much of the excesses of the emergent movement? Mars Hill would not be my cup of tea, but it seems to have a pretty orthodox doctrine. The tattoo thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurchDriscoll.PDF
Report comment to moderator
#14 You nailed it Herb! Nicely stated in so few words.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – 16
Driscoll has made a lot of remarks which are un-Biblical.
Mark Driscoll makes a statement which doesn’t stand up to Scripture –
Jesus said:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28
NO, Christ Jesus didn’t want to have sexual relations with a woman, if had lusted after a woman HE would have committed adultery in HIS heart, which obviously HE DID NOT. Here again we ‘lust’ and ‘tempted’ confused to make a story which isn’t true. Jesus was GOD the SON, HE was tempted, “yet without sin.”
Report comment to moderator
The verse below should be added to my post above #18 above.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15
Jesus was without sin, so there is no way HE lusted after any woman. Driscoll either doesn’t know this, or ignores it. Without searching out the Scriptures, one can not know what’s in them.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The passage you quote about Jesus being tempted and the other one about the prize-fighter Jesus with the tattoo up his leg, sound like they might be dramatic messages to the 14-16 year old crowd. As such, I don’t think they cross the line. They sound like acceptable dramatizations to make a biblical point.
Actually, I was writing to withdraw my much too casual comment that ‘Mars Hill is not my cup of tea’. I was surfing their website and there was a Q&A for adults only, and I followed a link from their website to an online “Christian-run” sex toy shop. It was a little disturbing….
People come to Christ from all kinds of backgrounds and situations, and I appreciate leaders who step outside the usual traditions of the church to reach them without sacrificing doctrinal accuracy to do so. Perhaps that is what Mark Driscoll is trying to do, but given the content of the website—and that link in particular— I’m not really sure what to think about what he teaches as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – 20
YOU WRITE: “The passage you quote about Jesus being tempted and the other one about the prize-fighter Jesus with the tattoo up his leg, sound like they might be dramatic messages to the 14-16 year old crowd. As such, I don’t think they cross the line. They sound like acceptable dramatizations to make a biblical point.”
The one about Jesus having a tattoo was in Relevant Magazine, its not a kid mag – it really wouldn’t matter what age group it was, it isn’t Biblical, that’s EXACTLY what leads people astray. The real TRUTH is the REAL DEAL, not a made up rendition – GOD doesn’t need a faux sermon to give out the Gospel.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,</b. and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19
GOD the Son should never be referred to in terms such as these, there is no excuse, the WARNING is very clear.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!